Відео

Good morning sofia cosentino

This guy can use a lot of words to say absolutely nothing.

He's talking shit.

But we must always thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God has chosen you for salvation through •sanctification by the Spirit and through belief in the truth. He called you to this through our gospel, so that you might obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

He said NOTHING about election But you can hear enough in this clip to know that he does reject election. God Is not a puppet master, That is correct....but He is a potter!!!!!

NT Wright's Seemingly wise and brilliant idea " Let's just read the bible and see where it takes us" Philosophy brushes aside And puts you into doubt every core christian doctrine that has been leave been believed by The church throughout all history.... And then it focuses all the attention on NT Wright To be the spokesperson of the whole world for the bible and what it teaches. A brilliant way to make money on books!

NT WRIGHT: SELF CONFESSED REJECTOR OF THE GOSPEL IN THIS VIDEO. NO NEED TO LISTEN TO ANOTHER WORD FROM HIM. Galatians 5...heresy is a work of the flesh.. they that practice heresy shall not inherit the kingdom of God. BEWARE OF FALSE PROPHETS

Yes, N.T. Wright is great for taking 5 minutes to affirm he doesn't really know because it's complicated.

23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory- 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Ro 9:23-24.

He'll have to defus the Calvinist Bomb in Romans 9 if he wants Reformed folk to agree with him. There's a reason so many dispute Paul's meaning.

I've never read Barth But I've heard he was very close to Universalism. For that I would applaud him.

Ok. Got it. NT Wright is a heretic. Denial of personal predestination unto salvation and the doctrine of election. He also denies justification by faith! He said we are not justified until we are in heaven. WAKE UP! THIS IS JUST A BOOK MONEY MAKER WITH AN ELOQUENT ACCENT.

I think some people believe in the predestined salvation becoz of another verse in the Bible that says "Many are called but only few are chosen" (Matthew 22:14). "Many are called" which means not all are called. So what happens to those who are not called? They have ZERO chance of availing salvation? That is why I can't blame some people in believing in the predestiny theory. Of course I don't want to believe that theory but some verses of the Bible seem to suggest just like that.

Romans 9 verse 8 says the promise the Holy Spirit is the children of the promise. (The Holy Spirit) are counted for the seed. The Holy Spirit is the promise.

Unfortunately, I cannot make sense of Wright's last two sentences, regarding Romans 9-11. 1. "If Israel had believed straight off the top, then any Gentiles coming in would have had to just be part of Israel, whereas the point is---he says, at the end of Romans 11---that God has subjected all to disobedience so that all who come will be by my mercy. 2. And so he’s exploring the very strange ways in which the Christ-shaped cross and resurrection-shaped pattern of salvation has actually been written largely into the story of Israel."

classic NT wright not answering anything and too afraid to take a true stance

so god basically cries about things and dies on a cross. I thought my god was greater than that. oh well. happy easter i guess

Thankyou.

Is the Protestant reformation perspective on Paul not a new perspective in itself historically? The first systematic commentary on Roman’s is that by Origen, then from John chrysostom - native greek, latin ambrosiaster,…

Wright's representation Ephesians 1 is disingenous: The text makes it clear that [God] hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ," etc. The emphasis in Ephesians 1 is upon God as the constructor of all things creaturely in space and time "according to the good pleasure of His will," and this includes salvation, and God's plan for salvation. If Wright were in charge of God's universe, Wright might very well insist on doing things differently--but Wright doesn't have a universe. Wright has a perverse streak that continually seeks to pull celestial things down to the ground--down to the persons of men; politics; other historians' histories; and "readings" of texts whose analytical processes are modeled upon those produced by post-modern French literary critics writing from, say, the 1970s onward. Plus, "the historical Jesus" is a long-standing fallacy and deception of The Enemy (see C.S. Lewis' Letter 23, from "The Screwtape Letters).

Messy!!

Wow! This took some serious scriptural Jiu Jitsu to come up with this idea from those passages. He took plainly written scriptures and turned them into utter nonsense.

"Telling the story of Israel?" Wow, this guy really takes away the gift salvation. I'd prefer to interpret the scripture on the plain meaning and in relation to the Church, the bride of Christ.

Love this

”That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved. Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done.“ ‭‭Romans‬ ‭1‬:‭26‬-‭28‬ ‭NLT‬

1:00 So it sounds like Wright is explaining that those who are "justified" and "glorified" aren't necessarily those who we would call "saved."

Salvation is of the Lord, it’s nothing of us ,we don’t want it unless God wakes us up by his spirit.

What's this book that N.T Wright mentions?

He's clearly trying to recontextualize these passages in a way where they don't read as they explicitly read because what they directly say is a problem for his theology. The issue is that what he presents is not compatible with what those texts actually say. Romans 8 is talking about salvation verse 24-25 'For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.' This is after all creation groaning for redemption (18-23), Paul then goes on to say that 'the Spirit himself intercedes for us', who is the us? It's not Israel (nothing in the text would lead to this conclusion), it's the Spirit-filled Christian's in the church in Rome that Paul is writing to. What he's saying is true of all Christian's who have the Holy Spirit (V1-17) . He's not giving some really abstract story about Israel without mentioning Israel. Likewise, Romans 9 is concerning salvation verse 27 - 'And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel[c] be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved' I implore you to go and actually read these passages rather than letting one man (who denies that God's wrath towards sin and punishing Jesus for our sin on the cross) repaint the way you approach God's Word.

When I am in Christ I am able to be called according to His purpose. God’s purpose was before the world, not you - 2Tim 1:9 Predestination is a destination predetermined = heavenly place - Eph 1:3, 2:6

It's unfortunate to me that Wright, a brilliant scholar, would begin to answer that question by saying it's a 17th century question, then diminishing the Calvinist perspective, and then giving a personal application without taking a doctrinal stance. Wright has done so much good work. And he thinks so quickly on his feet. Why wouldn't he just answer the question?

Can someone please tell me to which book he is referring to at the 2:35 mark? Thank you and God bless.

J.I. Packer has a great line: N T Wright foregrounds what the Bible backgrounds, and backgrounds what the Bible foregrounds but Wright does more than that; he denies a crucial component of justification, namely imputation. So, in answer to your question, yes-in denying imputation, Wright is preaching another gospel.

Very interesting. Thank you.

Just believe the word of God. HE receives ALL the GLORY and HE will NOT share HIS GLORY with another

No - How can two walk together - lest they be agreed. Scot has announced his allegiance is in opposition with the Truth in Christ. #Maranatha

If you have ever read what N.T. Wright teaches on heaven, hell, salvation, gospel, eschatology, on the major Essential Doctrines of the Bible in his books like, "The Day the Revolution Bagan", "Surprised by Hope", "How God Became King" (all three are kind of summary from his popular book "Perspective on Paul"), no one would listen to him. Regardless of how clever he can explain any topic, his explanations are out of a deluded mind. Don't follow him and deceive yourself. The issue is not whether he is a Calvinist or Arminian, the issue is whether this man is saved or not. Anyone who thinks that the vicarious, substitutionary death of Jesus is a pagan idea, going to heaven is a platonian view, what hope is left for such people? Anyone who is a fan of N. T Wright is either ignorant of Bible doctrines, or a liberal, or Universalists & annihilasinist, or have never read his/her bible.

ARMINIANISM IS A HERESY.

To me it seems like the apostle was giving his interpretation of the resurrection at the last day Jesus talked about in John chapter six.

There are good reasons why one would answer the question this way, by not answering the question. Politicians do this all the time. If you are truly born again, you will not loose your salvation.

Once again I find myself asking "did he even answer the question?"

I’m so glad I’ve heard this explained through the long Lessons of Tim Mackie through the history and the cosmology lessons and all the authors that support this. I grew up with this earn your salvation instead of “work out” your salvation in Ephesians . Love these lectures from different scholars like NT Wright and their books. I can’t read them fast enough. ! Thank you all.

This is a very simplistic and medioca version of this link. Its very literal and has no depth to it

Thanks for your perspective Scot. Listening to Scot talk about Homosexuality is like reading Paul's letter to Philemon addressing slavery in God's Kingdom. The contemporary question was did Paul go too far? The historical question from our context is did Paul go far enough? That debate took about 1800 more years, 62 AD --> 1863 AD. I look forward to hearing opinions about homosexuality in the church in 3823 AD if Scot should've gone beyond the cusp of an idea. The bible is our history book of how we apply the messages God has revealed to us *in our context*. If it were easy, we wouldn't need to meditate on it so much. However, it's easy to spot some mistakes we have made so far. Thanks for starting to more the arrow in a better direction. The one to whom it is given, should accept it

Praise God! We thank You, Lord, for Your incredible love to all of us. No words can describe how grateful we are for all You have done for us.

Lord Jesus, resurrect with me 2023. I want to see you in my life, family and ministry. Amen

Absloute nonsense. To say Romans 8 is not about salvation utterly ridiculous. Words like calling, justification, and glorification aren't about salvation? N.T Wright is the king of obfuscation.

I’ve been struggling with this election pre destination thing for a while. I feel like a weight has been lifted. God bless you. 🙏

This man is a demon.

HALLELUJAH! HE IS RISEN